Message to Maldives president Mohammed Nasheed: your claims are BS

If there is a ground zero for observing the impacts of a changing global climate the Maldives are definitely a front-runner.

…

Soon after arriving by float plane President Nasheed delivered a harsh message.

“Carbon dioxide emissions are going to kill us,” he said.

=======

That’s almost too stupid to believe, but then again this is the same country that pulled this sort of stupid publicity stunt.

Oct 17th 2009 Members of the Maldives’ Cabinet donned scuba gear and used hand signals Saturday at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the threat of global warming to the lowest-lying nation on earth.

An Auckland University researcher has offered new hope to the myriad small island nations in the Pacific which have loudly complained their low-lying atolls will drown as global warming boosts sea levels.

Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench has measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm – an average of 2mm a year – over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size.

Working with Arthur Webb at the Fiji-based South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, Kench used historical aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands.

They found that the remaining 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in a scientific journal, Global and Planetary Change.

“It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown,” Prof Kench told the New Scientist. “But they won’t.

3. Willis explains how Floating Islands work, and he should know, he spent a lot of time working on one. He also explains why CO2 isn’t an issue. He writes:

Does increased CO2 cause increased sea level rise?

Short answer, data to date says no. There has been no acceleration the rate of sea level rise. Sea level has been rising for centuries. But the rate of the rise has not changed a whole lot. Both tidal stations and satellites show no increase in the historic rate of sea level rise, in either the short or long term. Fig. 1 shows the most recent satellite data.

Figure 1. Change of sea level over time. Radar data from the TOPEX satellite. The light blue line is sea level with monthly anomalies removed. The interval between data points is usually ten days. The gray line is the 1993-2004 linear trend projected to the end of the timeline. Gaussian average using a 71-point filter. Photo taken at Taunovo Bay Resort, Fiji.

Up until about the end of 2004, there was little change in the rate of sea level rise. Since then the rise has slowed down. The average (dark blue line) does not stray far from the trend (black line) up until 1994. Since then, it is well below the projected trend (gray line). We were supposed to be seeing some kind of big acceleration in the sea level rise caused by increased CO2. Instead, we are seeing a decrease in the rate of sea level rise. So the first claim, that increasing CO2 will cause increased rates of sea level rise, is not supported by the evidence.

Note that I am not saying anything about the future. The rate of sea level rise might go up again. What we can say, however, is that there is no hint of acceleration in the record, only deceleration. The claim of CO2 induced sea level rise is false to date.

Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of INQUA, the International Commission on Sea Level Change, has studied real-world sea levels for nearly 40 years. Rather than relying mostly on computer models, as most climate scientists do, Dr. Morner has concentrated on using satellites, photographs and detailed measurement records to determine whether the oceans are rising, falling or remaining pretty much the same.

“The sea is not rising,” he has told anyone who will listen. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” What’s more, if it rises in the 21st Century, it will be by “not more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm.” That’s pretty much the same prediction as that derived by the other real-world measurers, Houston and Dean.

…

Two American experts on coastal construction and sea-level — James Houston, director emeritus of engineering research and development for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Robert Dean, professor emeritus of civil and coastal engineering at the University of Florida — examined decades worth of data from all the tidal monitors around the U.S. and determined earlier this year that “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years.” indeed, the rate at which oceans have been rising has “possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.”

6. If sea level is such a big problem, why is the Maldives government allowing new development?

“Only 6 luxurious beachfront private residences will be built at both the sunrise and sunset sides of this magical island, Soneva Fushi Resort.”

…

The Republic of Maldives in the Indian Ocean, home to some of the world’s finest white sand beaches and exceptional marine life, has to date never allowed ownership of private real estate to foreigners. Soneva Fushi by Six Senses will be among the very first to offer this privilege.

And this just isn’t an isolated event, it’s part of the official policy for tourism:

The Ministry of Tourism embarked on an ambitious expansion of the tourism industry with 37 new islands opened for bidding in the period 2004-2006. The first round of developments was announced in 2004, with 11 islands being opened for bidding.

The Government is working to construct 11 new regional airports in 11 regions and work is under way to complete them as soon as possible, said Minister of Communication and Civil Aviation Mahmoud Razi. Razi who is among the newest three cabinet ministers appointed by President Mohamed Nasheed in June said so answering questions in the People’s Majlis Razi said regional airports will be constructed in Shaviyani, Noonu, Raa, Baa, Lhaviyani, Alifu Dhaalu, Dhaalu, Gaafu Alifu, Gaafu Dhaalu and Gnaviyani atolls.

The accord promised $30bn (£19bn) in aid for the poorest nations hit by global warming they had not caused. Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister, Ahmed Shaheed, wrote to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, expressing eagerness to back it.

30 billion? Heck, that’s 10 times more than the gross domestic product of the whole country! They’ll say anything to get their hands on that.

So since the Maldives is fond of making grand pronouncements about how climate change is going to hurt them/kill them make them climate refugees or other such silliness, let me make a pronouncement of my own based on the available data shown above.

Anything coming out of the mouths of Maldives officials related to climate, CO2, or sea level is pure bullshit.

The only purpose of it is to continue to paint Maldives as a victim, so they’ll get some of that climate cash promised by the fools that attend these climate conferences. Meanwhile, they continue to expand their travel industry, build new resorts, build new airports, and promote tourism while laughing all the way to the bank.

Thinking people should cross the Maldives off their vacation possibilities list. I have, I refuse to go there, even if offered a free trip, because these grifters are playing victims at the expense of taxpayers everywhere.

The development going on in the Maldives is quite a contrast to this retarded thinking in Australia, red emphasis mine:

Marks Point property owner drowning in opinions

BY DAMON CRONSHAW LAKE MACQUARIE REPORTER

14 Oct, 2011 04:00 AM

A SELF-FUNDED retiree has been told he cannot develop his land at Marks Point because rising sea levels will inundate his property by 2100.

Lake Macquarie City Council staff have recommended refusing Rob Antill’s plan for four two-level dwellings on a 1300-square-metre site.

A council staff report said the development site would have ‘‘a small area permanently inundated by 2050’’.

Yep, the Maldives. Them Al[l] Dives. New airports to receive carbon-belching airplanes and rich tourists. Hypocrites. This is precisely how dumb the whole IPCC-let’s-congregate-in-Durban apparatus turns out to be. Anything can now be deemed a source of AGW victimhood. Like the anthropogenic component of anything, impossible to distinguish from other causes, but easy enough to quantify by slippery politicians. It’s a bad joke. Occupy this, you lunkards.

Envisat says there hasn’t been any sea level rise in 5 1/2 years.http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/no-sea-level-rise-in-over-5-12-years/
Given the margin of error with T/P, and the changes in equipment and their sensitivity, I really don’t think its proper to merge T/P data with the Jasons’ and Envisat….. but then, given the tweaking done to the more recent satellites, I’m not all that confident in their information, either.

REPLY: Yes, about the same as you, incapable of assimilating facts but swooning over dogma.

But, there are people in government assigned to search for detrimental opinion, such as something that might harm their tourism industry it will eventually be known, even if not responded to. Of broader reach are the thousands of people worldwide that will read this article, and repeat it. – Anthony

I just re-read Houston’s paper on tidal guages showing no real change in sea-level changes in the last hundred years, and RealClimate’s response and Tamino’s response and the Vermeer 2009 paper on sea level rises (RC, T & V say we’ll drown in all likelihood by 2100). It is note-worthy that the cabal claims the modelling is spot-on with the current data, that declines in sea-level have been predicted, and that statistical analyses by those like Houston are invalid. It is also noteworthy that the group complain about start-point problems with the skeptics, while dismissing the current end-point as irrelevant. The Gore-Hansen sea-level destruction of mankind lives on.

Since when do we no longer look at what the water is doing today to figure out what it might do tomorrow? Since Hansen-1988, I suspect.

Pre-1988 curves show no significant difference for tidal gauge data. The changes occur when the satellite data are dropped in. Funny, that. The satellite data show no positive change in the 32 years of satellite data, especially if you ignore the outlier satellite that shows even more drop in levels than the other satellites. Convenient, that. A sea-level drop means nothing if you say that at tunes you expect a “temporary” sea-level drop even if you can’t predict when that time will be. Also convenient.

Some movie or story has the coach of a football team, after suffering defeat, say “We didn’t lose. We just ran out of time”. Life imitates art (bad art at that).

Sea-level changes are the canary-in-the-coal-mine for the CO2 warmists. Only the melt of the Antarctic and Greenland ice masses will cause the sea-level to rise. This will happen only if the temp rises significantly and truly (as opposed to Hansen’s GISTemp and manufactured Arctic temperatures). According to the Hansen et al story, this temperature rise will happen and in lock-step with CO2 rise. So if CO2 goes up, temperatures must be rising and must cause the land-based ice to melt, and must cause sea-levels to go up. It is inescapable.

How many years can the warmists persist with their failing predictions? (Okay, “scenarios”.) In their heads, maybe 2050. Like wild-eyed, self-believing investment counsellors, tomorrow could well be the day that the reverses end and a rapid, sustained recovery that they predicted (had in a scenario) begins. For the world, perhaps not so long.

Gore, Hansen, the president of the Maldives – they are all the football coach who never lost a game. As sad as this is, however, they will retire (maybe not, actually). Other voices will take their places. But admit error? Seriously doubt it. We’ve already heard the Chinese-coal-sulphate-soot excuse for the non-temp rise since 2002. They’ll always have some sort of safe exit.

Envisat says there hasn’t been any sea level rise in 5 1/2 years.
================================================
…and that’s after adjusting up for gravity, sea floor volcanoes, sea floor sinking, orbit deterioration…..
…all that water that’s now sitting on top of the land

Y eah, I have been following their bull for a few years now, it doesn’t take a genius to see through this crap, but don’t forget, there aren’t too many intelligent people in the climate change industry…just those with an agenda.
Ian

The Maldives and its government are extracting the urine from the rest of the worlds government idiots. I have never been – and I guarantee I will never go based on their crying wolf claims in order to extract funds!

Envisat says there hasn’t been any sea level rise in 5 1/2 years.
================================================
…and that’s after adjusting up for gravity, sea floor volcanoes, sea floor sinking, orbit deterioration…..
…all that water that’s now sitting on top of the land
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep……. sea level is going down because it rained……… http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262……… God bless NASA and their enlightened approach.

Australia is buried in mad legislation. It will be the first developed nation to fall to complete totalitarianism and the fault will be on all those stoners who asked for their government to become all encompassing.

based on that logic….we should stop all beach restoration projects immediately

What logic is that? Beach restoration has something to do with sea level relative to coral atoll islands? Most beaches of the world are sand on bedrock, so your thinking has some holes in it, doesn’t it? Sea level also has little to do with beach sand loss, which depends on storms and coastal ocean flow.

stevo says:
October 15, 2011 at 10:46 am

I am sure he is listening to your message.

I’m sure he’s ignoring it. In fact I’m sure most of the wealthy of the world who can afford to fly or sail their yachts down there couldn’t give 2 spits. Hypocrisy does not require the attention of those practicing it to be exposed.

It seems to me that those of us who do not wholly agree with the AAGW science agenda spend our time reacting to papers and press releases relentlessly put out by the pro-AAGW side. Why is is it that we don’t put the onus on the other side to disprove our theories, rather than having to reat to their PR machine the whole time. A story is only new and reportable by the MSM on its first appearance. Rebuttals are for those behind the curve and neither worth reporting nor commenting on.

Are there Warmista who actually support the claims of officials from the Maldives? In other words, are there Warmista who support both the claim that the islands will soon lose beach front to the ocean and the claim that now is the time to build new hotels on the beach? Does Al Gore support both claims?

How can anyone keep a straight face while making predictions about global warming induced sea level rises.

0.8 degree over 130 years isn’t likely to induce much thermal expansion of the oceans and it isn’t likely to melt significant ice. Even a couple of degrees will probably take centuries to have much impact.

Australian planners do not deserve the name “planner” – refusing applications based on discredited theories ought to be the last thing they should do.

Again “town planning” isn’t about good design but rather the revenue raised by the application process.

Sounds a bit like that new fangled bit of eco-protection – the carbon tax.

PS I was a local government Environmental Health Officer and I can tell you when it comes to local government planning follow the money – enough will get you anything.

Great article. I can understand why Nasheed would lie through his teeth. If I were an atheist and someone told me I could get my hands into a $30 Billion dollar pot if I were Christian, the first words out of my mouth would be “Praise the Lord, Hallelujah brother.”

While I welcome the publicity you’ve brought our tropical island paradise, I must correct some of your serious misconceptions.

First, please be aware that the “luxury beachfront estates” we’re advertising are in fact 100% watertight and fully functional both above and below the surface of the ocean, much like the underwater hotels so popular with tourists. Second, those “airports” you mention in your article are actually amphi-ports, i.e. facilities for amphibious aircraft, surface vessels, and submersibles. Third, as that photo of our 2009 meeting illustrates, the government of the Maldives conducts an ever-increasing proportion of its business underwater, and encourages the private sector to do the same.

Obviously the transition to our submerged future will be expensive, which is why I’m sure you won’t begrudge us our fair share of the UN’s climate reparations budget. In fact, you could consider the money an investment in your own future, since our hard-won amphibious expertise will be of enormous value to the USA (indeed, to the world) as your coastlines are inevitably inundated. Both your children and mine (I am a proud new papa) will thank us both.

I must close now, as I’m running low on air and my Apple Gore computer seems to be developing a leak. I look forward to reading your retraction on your excellent web site.

Does anyone know if islands, surrounded by coral, can ‘grow’ enough to keep up with a slow rise? It doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility that the whole ecosystem will reach for the sun, creating opportunities for entrainment of detritus and soil that would keep the coast line growing along with the rise.

(To be read with a couple of cotton balls in the corner of your mouth)

We people, we’re too polite nowadays. Discuss this, debate that. In the mean time they’re muscling in on our taxes these rent seekers of the victims industries.
In the olden days, no debates or talkn’, we’d take a baseball bat to their knees then they’d see things our way.

Paul Bahlin
Since coral grows under water, usually by accretion, the answer is no. However the Maldives, like Pacific atolls, is in fact a coral island(s). it was once underwater. In the Maldives case, the time it was underwater was disconcertingly recent. 5,000 BP. Also like Pacific atolls, the Maldives is made up of 2 coral systems: a dead inner one being the island(s) and a very active outer one which creates a barrier reef that protects the inner one from destruction. In the case of the outter reef, a bit of sea rise would be welcome.
BTW, recent studies in Hawaii show that global warming, such as it is, and CO2 concentrations have had no effect on coral growth. Natural enemies, intentional destruction (bleaching) and pollution are by far the most destructive elements.

The fact that the Maldives are trying to be Carbon neutral, yet their plans exclude ‘air travel’, is of course laughable. And the fact that the Maldives are building 11 new airports, for an expanding tourist industry, whose influx of new tourists are largely from newly Rich Chinese, is again laughable.

Ie if the Maldives economy comes first, even though air travel to them generates CO2, which is a luxury for wealthy, is supposedly helping make the Maldives sink. Demonstrates no country, especially, China, etc will sacrifice economic growth for any real policies to counter CO2.

BS I think just lowers the tone a bit (even though I might think it true!) And gives some good reason to ignore the contents of the article……………

Does anyone know if islands, surrounded by coral, can ‘grow’ enough to keep up with a slow rise?

==========

It appears very unlikely that they can’t. The tropical oceans of the world are littered with coral islands with no bedrock exposed and typical maximum elevations of 1 to 4 meters. (Not places where you would want to ride out a tropical cyclone). Their current state is either a truly remarkable coincidence or these islands managed to grow upward at a rate comparable to sea level rise even during the rapid melt of the continental glaciers 15000 years ago. So, yes, there are probably mechanisms that keep coral atolls at sea level even during periods of sea level rise

If they are that stupid let them drown,it will be interesting to watch though with negative sea level rise.Maybe they should join the 50 million climate refugee’s nobody can find or the thousands of Pacific Islanders who moved to N.Z. when their Island’s sank only nobody told N.Z. and it’s such a huge place they couldn’t find them. The Church of Global Warming requires such blind faith it’s turning the Catholic Church GREEN with ENVY

A bit OT, but a simple question to anyone in the know:
In a recent review article in the 21st Century Science & Technology journal:http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
Professor Mörner says as follows:
The TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite sea level graph was essentially flat for the period Oct 1992 through April 2000.
However, thereafter someone “tuned” the satellite data to a single tide gauge in Hong Kong, which exhibited a 2.3 mm/year rise (due most probably to land subsidence), and hence the present version (at latest from 2003 onward) of the satellite graph shows a linear upward trend.

Prof. Mörner calls this “one of the sea-level-gates”.
My question is: Is this a well-supported story?

Barry Woods gets the gold star, Pat gets to go back to school or better yet visit a coral island reef system (the best school there is).
To call the central sandy island dead is to ignore the bounty of terrestrial life found there. True the living reef builders’ vertical growth limit is set by the low tide sea level, but the sandy island shores are built by sand borne by wave and wind action. So where does the sand come from? Thousands (millions?) of parrot fish that spend their days munching the coral with their big buck teeth and expelling plumes of coral sand from their digestive systems. All the while corals are busy extracting calcium and CO2 from the ocean to build their skeletons.
Here is a grant proposal or thesis for some aspiring scientist: measure the volume of sand produces each year by one parrot fish X the number of those fish on the reefs. Certainly enough to keep up with Chicken Little’s sea rise.

WOW! What a remarkable statement, foolish, but are we surprised. I was talking to someone who claims to teach physics and she was telling me CO2 traps heat. We are doomed if teachers don’t know what they are talking about.

A bit OT, but a simple question to anyone in the know:
In a recent review article in the 21st Century Science & Technology journal:http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
Professor Mörner says as follows:
The TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite sea level graph was essentially flat for the period Oct 1992 through April 2000.
However, thereafter someone “tuned” the satellite data to a single tide gauge in Hong Kong, which exhibited a 2.3 mm/year rise (due most probably to land subsidence), and hence the present version (at latest from 2003 onward) of the satellite graph shows a linear upward trend.

Prof. Mörner calls this “one of the sea-level-gates”.
My question is: Is this a well-supported story?

============

I wouldn’t know for sure, but the instrumentation for TOPEX/POSEIDON is a radar altimeter. Basically an RA is a radar that is pointed down and measures the distance from the satellite to the “ground” about — as I recall — 20 times a second. The system is a lot more complex than that, But, it wouldn’t seem to need calibration to a ground station.

I’ve only skimmed the Morner paper so far, but he seems to be asserting that the TOPEX/POSEIDON/Jason data has been fudged upward in some manner possibly involving the Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). GIA is used to remove land level changes due to rebound of the land surface at high latitudes after the melting of the continental glaciers. Apparently Hong Kong gets involved because it is the zero reference for the satellite GIA.

If I’m reading him right, Morner seems to be saying that the basic satellite data shows a sea level rise of about zero and that the 30cm (one foot) per century rise in the output data is due to poorly controlled ad hoc “corrections”. Could he be correct? I’m only about six months into learning about sea level rise. I thought at first that I could learn the basics in six months. Now, I’m thinking two to five years. FWIW, There is nothing that I have encountered that gives me warm, fuzzy feelings about the values used for GIA.

Patrick Davis says:
October 15, 2011 at 8:54 pm
WOW! What a remarkable statement, foolish, but are we surprised. I was talking to someone who claims to teach physics and she was telling me CO2 traps heat. We are doomed if teachers don’t know what they are talking about.

You may find this paper interesting, or possibly frightening, or depressing, or both.

Grade Inflation for Education Majors and Low Standards for Teachers:
When Everyone Makes the Grade

“Students who take education classes at universities receive significantly higher grades than students who take classes in every other academic discipline. The higher grades cannot be explained by observable differences in student quality between education majors and other students, nor can they be explained by the fact that education classes are typically smaller than classes in other academic departments. The remaining reasonable explanation is that the higher grades in education classes are the result of low grading standards. These low grading standards likely will negatively affect the accumulation of skills for prospective teachers during university training. More generally, they contribute to a larger culture of low standards for educators.”

Thank you Don. I’m not a fan of conspiracy theory, but as a physical chemist it’s far beyond my imagination that a satellite, orbiting hundreds of km high above, could measure a millimeter-level change on the earth’s surface.

Jolly well said, Anthony! It’s always important to fully expose such groups of shysters, as they suck at the teat of the cash cow with gusto.

Let’s all remember this article when we see MSM coverage of the up-coming Durban CAGW knees-up. I’d bet my bottom dollar we’ll see the usual suspects attempting to ‘thumb the marshmallow’ for all it’s worth…

tokyoboy October 15, 2011 at 11:39 pm and Don K October 15, 2011 at 10:04 pm

“Interview: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud

Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the
world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only
record which you shouldn’t use.

Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the
ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a
straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a
straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge.It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the[Hong Kong] tide gauge.

It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they
answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!”

Might I suggest that, if the Maldivians wish to prevent death by drowning, they merely resist the urge to lay face down at the high water mark for the rest of their natural average lifespan? Even raising the upper part of their body a few inches off the glorious white sand should ensure they live to a ripe old age. Of course, simply standing up should ensure they will live for another 450 years or so before the CO2-forced ravaging sea wholly engulfs their paradise. I suspect the $30bn will have long been wisely spent…

“The President of the Maldives recently held a Cabinet meeting underwater, saying his islands may be submerged. In an open letter, taken from the climate change supplement in the latest issue of the The Spectator, Nils-Axel Mörner assures him his country is safe”:

Dear Mr President,

….

have been on no fewer than six different field expeditions to the Maldives. We worked in the lagoon, we drilled in the sea, we drilled in lakes, we looked at the shore morphology — many different environments. We have always found the same thing: a total stability for the last 30 years, preceded by a 20cm drop in sea level in the 1970s.

We have presented a detailed documentation of the sea level changes in the Maldives over the past 4,000 years. The record of the last 500 years may be of special interest to the situation of your islanders. It shows:

The people of the Maldives had no problems surviving the 17th century, which was 50cm higher than now. Nor the last century, where it rose by 20cm. This bodes well for their prospects of surviving the next change.

I recently visited Bangladesh, a country cursed by floods. In the Sundarban delta, I documented very strong coastal erosion despite zero changes in sea level. So, even here, there is no global sea level rise going on today — just as in the Maldives, in Tuvalu and in Vanuatu, to mention a few famous sites claimed already to be in the process of becoming flooded.

By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively.

So why the scare-mongering? Could it be because there is money involved? If you inhabit a tiny island and can convince the world that its very existence is under threat because of the polluting policies of the West, the industrialised nations will certainly respond. The money is likely to flow in more quickly than the ocean will rise.

This is the fourth time I have written to you. Unfortunately, I think there is a problem with your email service because so far I have not received an acknowledgement. For this reason, I have decided to write this open letter in the pages of The Spectator.

Thank you Don. I’m not a fan of conspiracy theory, but as a physical chemist it’s far beyond my imagination that a satellite, orbiting hundreds of km high above, could measure a millimeter-level change on the earth’s surface.

I’m re-reading relevant papers/articles.

=======================

IMO, skepticism about the satellites is perfectly reasonable. However, they are quite remarkable platforms and include such features as a sort of “inverted GPS” (DORIS) that determines position from reference signals from a network of ground stations at fixed locations. The design goals seem to be in the mm range over the very long run. Nevertheless, they seem to be depending on averaging over a very large number of observations (maybe a million data points a day) to get the errors — which are possibly a meter or more on any given data point — down to mm. Can they really get that accuracy? I don’t know. I suspect not quite. On the other hand, the values from the several different RAs that have been flown in the past two decades seem to track each other fairly well, so maybe they really can. And it’s not like there aren’t problems with tidal gauges such as local uplift/subsidence that are — if anything — worse.

Here’s a link to a description of one of the RA carrying satellites. I found it to be quite readable.
noaa.gov/ml/ocean/J2_handbook_v1-4_no_rev.pdf

To me the Maldives is the massive smoking gun in the whole MMGW bullshit bandwagon. Every time I have ever asked, how, if the Maldives are in such danger, did they survive the 130m sea level rise in the last 13,000 years, all I ever get is silence or bollocks.

The refusal to look at the observational evidence of the past (indeed the recent past) is the gaping failing of the climate alarmism.

Do you remember how the maldives complained one or two years ago to international court, against the opening of a coal power plant in slovakia?
These **** asked european union to punish slovakia because they wanted to use coal to produce electricity and heating (it’s up to -20 C in January there), they said Slovakia would be responsible for the disappearance of maldives.
And now they open 11 airports?
Unbelievable.

Three days ago, an article about maldives was in front page of Le Monde french main newspaper, saying the island are disappearing quickly.

Wednesday the 8th December 2010 pm. 19:09 by REUTERS
“Climate Minister Lykke Friis (V) on behalf of Denmark promised 80 million dollars in support to small island states threatened by hurricanes and higher sea levels.”

“…But I was in the Maldives recently. And for anyone who does not believe in climate change or that they are science fiction, I would say: Visit Maldives, sounded the call from Lykke Friis.”http://tinyurl.com/3ctyl8h
———————————————————————————————
Please do NOT visit the Maldives – my fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize

I really shouldn’t reed whilst eating dinner, it takes me three times as long due to uncontrollable smiling. One thing, does bullshit sink or float as a result of CO2 rise and where do I apply for the research grant?

Kunfunadhoo, the “ultra luxurious” development on an unpopulated island might not be quite correct. There appear to be several largish buildings scattered around. About 1000 feet away is a small island which appears from the air to be like a mini New York.
Male is scarcely convenient, about 120 miles away.
There is no airport.
Wonderful thing, Google Earth.

de^mol says: October 16, 2011 at 8:20 pm
“What Mörner simply is saying that the original satellite data showed no trend, and the alarmists simply created one.”

Yes, I think I understand up to that point. However, it’s still hard for me to believe that the (seeimingly) prestigious researchers at Colorado Univ., who display the beautiful satellite sea-level graph to the whole world, are among The Team.

de^mol says: October 16, 2011 at 8:20 pm
“What Mörner simply is saying that the original satellite data showed no trend, and the alarmists simply created one.”

Yes, I think I understand up to that point. However, it’s still hard for me to believe that the (seeimingly) prestigious researchers at Colorado Univ., who display the beautiful satellite sea-level graph to the whole world, are among The Team.

=========================

I haven’t read every line of every page on the CU site, but if I recall correctly they don’t go out of their way to point out that the material they display is probably the highest credible estimate of sea level rise. There are a number of other estimates. All lower and many at least somewhat credible. See Wikipedia for some other estimates. I have major doubts about Morner, but some of the others — especially the tidal gauge data (about half the CU estimate) probably should be taken seriously as well.

More interesting is the greyed out “done” stuff. I do wish these people would stop acting like they are certain. Most of their propaganda seems to be based upon claims/beliefs/sciency stuff as opposed to findngs/data/evidence.

True. It is quite incredible: Molner is essentially saying they are lying. I don’t understand that if this is not the case, why the people he is accusing, including the Uni, do not take any action (not even comments, or any legal steps) to dismiss these claims.

In addition, I think it is quite possible that even the Uni. is not directly involved, but get the data from ‘other’ people. Phil Jones, for example, was one of the people controlling the data, and refused to share this with others. I know this from a Dutch Prof. (pers. comm.) that asked to be allowed to have a view on the original data.

Well, I don’t know about Molner’s credibility, but it is something to accuse people from lying. It is not difficult for a large Uni or institution as the IPCC to sue him, stating that he must show evidence for his claim. That is not happening. Why?

In addition, even if the trend is a fact, it does not tell whether there is Climate Change due to CO2 emissions, or that this trend is due to effects from the last ice age. The shown trend is not much different from that of earlier centuries.

They should just move to Guam or Rabaul, where sea level is falling. Or, if they prefer a cooler climate, southern Alaska or Finland.http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Of course sea level isn’t actually falling. The point is, it is absolutely nonsensical to try to base conclusions about sea level from any one location. Guam and southern Alaska are tectonically active and Scandinavia is still experiencing post glacial isostatic rebound. Those local geologic effects will completely swamp any effect from global sea level change.
Tuvalu is also in a tectonically active area. It ain’t called the “Pacific RIng of Fire” for nothing.
Actual sea level change, as everybody else has noted, is quite modest and not alarming.

Clean and renewable energy is not such a bad thing if you look at the polluted cities in places like China and the underlying health issues, so investing in it now might not be such a bad thing after all, as we all know we can’t forever rely on fossil fuels. Who knows, Nasheed might even be doing all the naysayers a favour perhaps even if he’s lying, which I’m not saying he is.